D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Lanefan]

Again, this is a thing I just don't get. It's sounds like a dysfunctional game set up.

Why is the GM hoping for the players to do X rather than Y, if the premise of the game is that the players can do any of X, Y, Z, . . . etc.

Or, to put it another way, if the GM's hope is supposed to be determinative, then why not communicate it up front? Or if it's not - if there is meant to be coordination among participants - then why not actually coordinate?

Quietly hoping they do something but leaving them still able to do something(s) completely else is IMO far - as in light-years far - better than outright stating "this is what I hope you'll do".

Put another way, it's no crime if - while the DM leaves open all of options X,Y,Z, and the rest of the alphabet - she think to herself that choices N or R would be really cool to run while option J would leave her uninspired.

Put ye another way, she's allowed to have her own internal opinions even if her neutral-arbiter role prevents her from expressing them.

 

[Lanefan]

What options are there? If a GM is unwilling or unable to run a 1-on-1 session with an individual that does not go along with the group, what else can be done? I'm fine with short side-encounters myself but not everyone is and it depends on the amount of time and effort involved.

If Bob wants to do X and the rest of the group wants to do Y, Bob can try to convince the rest of the group to do X but I'm not going to tell anyone they have to follow Bob's lead. If you think it's bad to tell Bob "no" what do you do?

Bob's character goes off and does his own thing, which we sort out during the week* either over a beer at the pub or by email. In the here-and-now of the session Bob is free to roll up another character, or sit and watch, or whatever.

* - exception: if what Bob's character is doing might very soon impact what the rest of 'em are doing - e.g. he's actively plotting against the party or, conversely, thinks he's found a faster/better way of accomplishing their goals - I try to sort it out by secret note on the fly.

 

[Lanefan]

If they're causing a major disruption of the game for anything less than their PC is going to die if it doesn't get resolved right now, they should be looked at poorly.

The exception being if-when that one player immediately gets support from one or more other players, in which case you do have a problem that probably needs to be sorted then and there even if it means the rest of the session is lost in argument.

 

[Lanefan]

It depends on the scope. If it's a quick easy fix over a misunderstanding, then addressing it to its conclusion is fine, because it's only a minute or two. If it's not an easy and quick fix, it's not fine to continue on and needs to wait until after the game.

The biggest argument I ever got in along such lines as a player was a situation where my imagination of what the DM was describing and his imagination of it were completely different. After numerous attempts to get him to clarify didn't get anywhere, I declared my action based on how I imagined the situation as that was all I had to go on. Result: one dead Lanefan; followed by one long, loud argument. (yes, it was my namesake character who was in the middle of all this)

All was forgiven in the end; the conflict in imagination was largely due to things I-as-player didn't think of and-or my character didn't (or couldn't) notice.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Quietly hoping they do something but leaving them still able to do something(s) completely else is IMO far - as in light-years far - better than outright stating "this is what I hope you'll do".

Put another way, it's no crime if - while the DM leaves open all of options X,Y,Z, and the rest of the alphabet - she think to herself that choices N or R would be really cool to run while option J would leave her uninspired.

Put ye another way, she's allowed to have her own internal opinions even if her neutral-arbiter role prevents her from expressing them.

I think the point is more that IF the GM wants the players to do a specific thing or go a specific way, why not just be open about that? Why be coy about it?

The obvious reason seems to be because the GM wants them to think they can do whatever they like, but really wants them to do something specific.

 

[Lanefan]

So...when exactly are problems supposed to be fixed? Because the message I'm getting here is "never ever during play, no matter what". And, as I've said multiple times now, things don't get fixed between sessions.

This is where it really helps to be playing with people you see and interact with outside of the actual game sessions, 'cause IME that's when this stuff usually does get sorted if-when needed.

For a long time myself, my DM (who also played in my game at the time), and another guy would get together at the DM's place every week to play and record music. I'd almost always get there well before the third chap, and instead of playing music while waiting for him the two of us would often end up talking about game stuff instead.

In university years, a bunch of us who played and-or DMed in different games would hang around at the pub and talk game stuff.

Now it's mostly email, but the same principle applies.

 

[Faolyn]

Okay, but like...I genuinely do not see the difference between this and the (entirely made-up) example I gave up-thread with Ranakht the Paladin and the Hyksos priests of Sutekh-Garyx. (Link, in case you missed it.) Like if this is so blatantly bad, what wasn't bad about the example I gave? Why is this a totally justifiable moment for players to walk, but my example is exactly the reverse, something the player should just accept without question?

In @Hussar's example, the party planned for a heist and the GM went along with their plans until the following week, when the jeweler had vanished into thin air, leaving no trace. The PCs were completely unable to find out what happened, the GM apparently never said "don't do a heist" and no explanation was given to justify the jeweler's disappearance. This is railroading because they were simply not allowed to do the heist or find out what happened to the jeweler. And it was made worse, IMO, by the GM not telling the players to not plan a heist or that they hadn't wanted to run one.

In your example, the party needed to get information on a cult. Your particular background (being a paladin and being related to the pharaoh) didn't help, and two reasons were given--ancient enmity between your god and the guards' people (or possibly their god; I can't tell), and that the guard is too honorable to be bribed. This sucks that your background didn't help, but the party was still able to get the information. The party's goal wasn't blocked in the way it way it was in Hussar's example. Additionally, unlike in that example, the GM told you right away that the guard wouldn't budge.

It is possible that this hypothetical GM is a Bad GM because she was specifically targeting you or your character. It's also possible that she was railroading you away from the temple entirely. The only way to find out would be--as I said to Hussar--to look for a pattern of behavior. Does she frequently not let your character do things he should be able do because of his class, race, background or other character elements, but is fine when other players do similar things? If your party tried to sneak into the temple's library to look the info up themselves, would there be unrealistic levels of security done specifically to keep you out? What would happen if you sent a different character into the same temple to ask?

Okay. So you've had a player who doesn't want plot hooks in his sandbox games. We had already discussed, at length IIRC, how plot hooks can be pretty controversial in a campaign claiming to be a "sandbox"--because some people see them as necessary and others see them as opposing the very premise; some see them as only there to get the ball rolling and then avoided thereafter; some see them as a "sometimes food" as I like to call it, an occasional tool any time the action bogs down but not something to be relied upon.

Well, I had a player who didn't want that plot hook. It's not like he rejected every plot hook.

I don't see how this in any way addresses or even really responds to Hussar's point.

Maybe you missed my response to that.

Hussar said that other people who played with that GM said the GM didn't railroad them. My point is, the GM may not have "had" to railroad them because they wanted to go along with adventure's plot, while Hussar's group wanted to do something completely different from that (which from what I've read is "use the keep as a base camp and then go around killing monsters.")

 

[Lanefan]

Maybe this is where I should mention, that at my table, we generally call each other by our character names when in-game and even go so far as to change our handle on our discord channel--so as to help immersion and stay in character,

We do the same for in-game stuff but not for out-of-game stuff, e.g. where Caramon is Bob's character:

"Hey Bob, while you're at the fridge grab me a beer, will ya? Thanks!" vs
"Caramon, you just got hit for 5 points damage and you need a saving throw."

So Alicia is an NPC or a GMPC?

Same thing, isn't it?

I think, based on previous posts, the game log involving Alicia is from a one-on-one game but I can't remember whether pemerton was the GM or the player.

 

[Lanefan]

I think the point is more that IF the GM wants the players to do a specific thing or go a specific way, why not just be open about that? Why be coy about it?

The obvious reason seems to be because the GM wants them to think they can do whatever they like, but really wants them to do something specific.

"Wants" is a different phrasing than "hopes" here; and there's nothing wrong with the DM quietly hoping they do something specific while still being ready and willing to run whatever they decide to do even if it's not what she hoped.

And if the DM were to be open about it, wouldn't that mmediately draw howls of "railroad!"?

 

[Bedrockgames]

This is where it really helps to be playing with people you see and interact with outside of the actual game sessions, 'cause IME that's when this stuff usually does get sorted if-when needed.

For a long time myself, my DM (who also played in my game at the time), and another guy would get together at the DM's place every week to play and record music. I'd almost always get there well before the third chap, and instead of playing music while waiting for him the two of us would often end up talking about game stuff instead.

In university years, a bunch of us who played and-or DMed in different games would hang around at the pub and talk game stuff.

Now it's mostly email, but the same principle applies.

Also a lot of us don't get as worked up over this stuff and don't want to play with folks who do, because it is how we spend our leisure time. We are just trying to have fun, and don't want it to be a source of additional stress in our lives